The High Court dismissed the petition challenging an order that refused to alter court fee to §27(a)(i) in an injunction suit regarding temple management. The court held the plaintiff did not allege denial of their absolute title, only management rights, thus §27(c) applies.
Original Petition is dismissed. No costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON
WEDNESDAY,THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 25TH ASWINA, 1940
OP(C).No. 1579 of 2018
AGAINST ORDERS IN IA NOS.8054/2018 AND IA NO.8076/2018 IN OS 3929/2012 DATED 12.6.2018 OF III ADDL. M.C.,THRISSUR
PETITIONER/S:/PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS 1 TO 4
AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.CHELLARI RAGHAVAN, THANGALUR VILLAGE, DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR.
3 PARAMESWARAN
AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.PANNIYATH RAGHAVAN, THANGALUR VILLAGE DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR.
4 DAMODHARAN
AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.KOTTAYIL VELAYUDHAN, THANGALUR VILLAGE DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR.
BY ADVS. SRI.K.S.BHARATHAN KUM.S.SWATHY
RESPONDENT/S:/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:
PARAPPUR THERK SIVASHETHRA TRUST THANGALUR VILLAGE DESOM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN-6980596.
BY ADVS. SRI.ARUN KUMAR.P SMT.AMBIKA RADHAKRISHNAN SRI.THIYYANNOOR RAMAKRISHNAN
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 1.8.2018, THE COURT ON 17.10.2018 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(C)1579/18
-2-
J U D G M E N T
The defendants in Ext.P1 suit filed as OS No.3929/2012 on the file of the III Additional Munsiff's Court, Thrissur, are the petitioners herein, who are aggrieved by Exts.P11 and P12 orders refusing to entertain their objections regarding the correctness of the court fee paid by the plaintiff in an injunction suit, under Section 27(c) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 ('Act' for short).
The plaintiff, the respondent herein, a Trust by name, Parappur Therk Sivashethra Trust filed Ext.P1 a representative suit under Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The suit was initially filed for injunction simpliciter and court fee was paid under Section 27(c) of the Act. Written statement was filed by the petitioners, who are impleaded as office bearers of Anugraha Ayyappaseva Sangam, an unregistered association raising a contention that the plaintiff Trust has no
OP(C)1579/18
-3-
right whatsoever to manage the affairs of the temple. The defendants have challenged the very existence of the Trust and its legality as well as its right to manage the affairs of the temple. They have also raised a plea that the court fee paid is not proper. On the basis of the allegations raised in the written statement challenging the right of the plaintiff to file the suit, the plaint was amended, including a relief of declaration of their right. The suit was amended as per Ext.P3 order and court fee was directed to be paid under section 25(b) of the Act. The petitioners herein filed IA No.9538/2017 stating that the issue regarding the correctness of the court fee has to be raised and determined by the court and vide Ext.P4 order, the application was allowed. The petitioners also filed IA No.21375/2016 (Ext.P5) raising additional issues and the IA was allowed and additional issues raised. Faced with the burden of paying additional court fee, the plaintiff filed IA No.7712/2018 (Ext.P6) to relinquish the prayer of declaration and to continue the suit as a suit for injunction simpliciter. The petitioners/defendants filed Ext.P7 stating that the question of court fee has to be determined and the respondent/plaintiff filed Ext.P8 objection to that. Ext.P7 application filed by the petitioners was
OP(C)1579/18
-4-
dismissed. Ext.P11 is copy of the order in Ext.P7 application. The learned Munsiff found that no title need be determined in the suit and therefore, payment of court fee under Section 27(c) was sufficient. It is this order which stands challenged before this Court.
“ 27 Suits for injunction. - In a suit for injunction-
(a) Where the reliefs sought is with reference to any immovable property, and
(i) where the plaintiff alleges that his title to the property is denied, or (ii) where an issue is framed regarding the plaintiff's title to the property,
fee shall be computed on one-half of the market value of the property or on rupees five hundred, whichever is higher:
xxx xxx xxx (c) in any other case, whether the subjectmatter of the suit has a market value or not, fee shall be computed on the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or on rupees five hundred, whichever is higher:”
OP(C)1579/18
-5-
“ 14. Relinquishment of portion of claim : A plaintiff who has been called upon to pay additional fee may relinquish a part of his claim and apply to have the plaint amended so that the fee paid would be adequate for the claim made in the plaint as amended. The Court shall allow such application on such terms as it considers just and shall proceed to hear and decide the claim made in the plaint as amended, provided that the plaintiff shall not be permitted at any later stage of the suit to add to the claim the part so relinquished.”
Others v. N.Ramani Kanthammal (D) Rep. By LRs and Others], where, distinguishing an earlier decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in AIR 1961 SC 1299 [Rathnavarmaraja v. Vimla], it was held that,
“Proper valuation of the suit property stands on a different footing than applicability of a particular provision of an Act under which court fee is payable and in such a situation, it is not correct to say that it has to be determined on the basis of evidence and it is a matter for the benefit of the revenue and the State and not to arm a contesting party with a weapon of defence to obstruct the trial of an action. It is because the Act empowers the
OP(C)1579/18
-6-
defendant to raise the plea of jurisdiction on a different yardstick.”
OP(C)1579/18
-7-
that all material allegations in the plaint should be construed and taken as a whole. The learned counsel points out para 6 of the plaint wherein the plaintiff has admitted that the temple and the properties appurtenant to it belong to Parakkulangara Parappurath Tharavadu as their private property and that the devotees and the residents of the locality have been given liberty to offer their prayers in the temple, and that is how the Trust was formed with the intention to manage the affairs of the temple and that the members of the Parakkulangara Parappurath Tharavadu have raised no objection whatsoever regarding the management of the affairs of the temple by the plaintiff. Declaratory decree which was sought by way of amendment of plaint was later relinquished by the plaintiff because the plaintiff being a Trust was not in a position to pay court fee on the market value of the property over which they are claiming any proprietary right or title. The learned counsel also relies on the decision in 2008 KHC 6249 [Anathula Sudhakar v. P.Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs and Others] to argue that in a suit for prohibitory injunction simpliciter relating to immovable property, the court is concerned with the possession of the plaint schedule property and the court can relegate the parties to the suit on title. The
OP(C)1579/18
-8-
learned counsel referring to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court relied upon by the petitioners submits that what has been stated in that is that the defendants can raise an issue as to the jurisdiction. Hence, argument of the learned counsel for the respondent is that there is no necessity to arrive at a finding regarding the title to the plaint schedule property or the temple, and what is essentially to be determined is only the possession of the plaintiff as regarding the management of the affairs of the temple. Hence, court fee need be paid only under Section 27(c) and not under Section 27(a)(i) of the Act as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
consideration here is whether the title to the plaint schedule property arises for consideration or not or has the plaintiff alleged that their title to the property is denied. It is true that in certain paragraphs of the plaint, the plaintiff had admitted that the defendants are denying their right to manage the affairs of the temple. The plaintiff has in no way alleged that they have absolute right, title and interest over the property belonging to the temple. Rather they have asserted in
OP(C)1579/18
-9-
paragraph 6 that the property belongs to Parakkulangara Parappurath Tharavadu and that it is with the knowledge and concurrence of a member of that family, that the plaintiff-Trust is managing the affairs of the temple. The defendants are the office bearers of an unregistered organisation and attempted to inter-meddle with the management of the temple. They too do not claim right, title or interest over the temple and the properties, rather, they admit that it is the Parakkulangara Parappurath Tharavadu, who had title over the property belonging to the temple. The suit is filed against the defendants in a representative capacity under Order I Rule 8 CPC, which gives option to anyone interested in the affairs of the temple to appear and contest. Apart from the defendants, none others, including the members of Parakkulangara Parappurath Tharavadu, appeared. This would indicate that Parakkulangara Parappurath Tharavadu, which admittedly had proprietary right over the property, do not intend to challenge the management of the affairs of the temple by the plaintiff-Trust. It is also contended that a member of the family is actively involved in the affairs of the Trust. Hence, on a reading of the plaint as a whole, it cannot be contended that the plaintiff has admitted that their title is
OP(C)1579/18
-10-
challenged, so as to bring the suit within the purview of Section 27(a)(i) of the Act.
The learned Munsiff was therefore, perfectly justified in overruling the objection raised by the defendants regarding the payment of court fee. The court fee need to be paid only under Section 27(c) of the Act. The Original Petition is dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
ASHOK MENON
JUDGE
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE AMENDED PLAINT IN OS NO.3929 OF 2012 DATED 03-11-2012. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT ON 2106-2016. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07-04-2018 IN IA NO.10029/2017 IN OS NO.3929 OF 2012. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11-04-2018 IN IA NO.9538 OF 2017 IN OS.NO.3929 OF 2012. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF IA NO.21375/2016 ALONG WITH AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT THEREOF IN OS NO.3929/2012 DATED 26-10-2016. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF IA 7712 OF 2018 IN OS NO.3929 OF 2012.
OP(C)1579/18
-11-
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE IA NO.8054 OF 2018 IN OS NO.3929 OF 2012 DATED 23-05-2018. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 24-052018. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 1406-2018 IN OP(C)NO.1483 OF 2018. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19-062018 IN OPC NO.1483 OF 2018. EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE CARBON COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12-06-2018 IN IA NO.8054 OF 2018 IN OS NO.3929 OF 2012. EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12-06-2018 DISMISSING IA NO.8076 OF 2018 IN OS NO.3929 OF 2012 ON THE FILES OF IIIRD ADDITIONAL MUSNIFF'S COURT, THRISSUR. EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF IA NO.13290 OF 2012 IN OS NO.3929 OF 2012 DATED 23-11-2012. EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF IA NO.22517 OF 2014 IN OS NO.3929 OF 2012 DATED 10-11-2014.
//TRUE COPY//
jg
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the plaintiff alleged that their title to the temple property was denied, necessitating valuation under Section 27(a)(i) or if the suit falls under Section 27(c).
Whether the plaintiff's admission that the property belongs to the Tharavadu and they only claim management rights constitutes a denial of title.
Whether the Original Petition filed by defendants challenging the Munsiff's order on court fees should be allowed or dismissed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vasanthi J. and Others v. N.Ramani Kanthammal (D) Rep. By LRs and OthersReferred¶44
(2017) 11 SCC 852 · Who else cites this
Rathnavarmaraja v. VimlaDistinguished¶45
AIR 1961 SC 1299 · Who else cites this
Neelavathi and Others v. N.Natarajan and OthersRelied on¶51
1980 KHC 627
Anathula Sudhakar v. P.Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs and OthersRelied on¶54
2008 KHC 6249
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Rajan and others
Parappur Therk Sivashethra Trust
Ashok Menon
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
